Post a pic

[JSngry]

37 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Or maybe you got the flagged post and naturally skipped over your own contribution! I know I didn't bother to flag every offender and trusted the mods to do what was needed.

Now THAT did not happen. Would not happen.

Usually what happens is that I get home form work in the afternoon, see a complaint (and there are very few these days, now that a select poster or three no longer hang out here)) and Larry's already handled it. Unless he's deleted a thread in the process , that's that.

Seems to work the other way as well, if I get it, I handle it.

I would like to note that there is now an ongoing, active "political discussion" revolving around an image that was posted more than 90 days ago that has just revved up within the last 24 hours due to one moderator having a look (for what reason, I don't know). I now challenge anybody to go back and review the entire contents of the board and bring complaints by the end of the week, or forever hold your peace.

And as somebody who spent a weekend + doing exactly that for one sub-forum (and 90 or so days back for the entire board) to restore the entirety of one poster's content that had been inadvertently deleted (blocked, more accurately), I wish you all well with that endeavor, and advise anybody who thinks they want to become a moderator to be ready to do the same.

If you don't want political discussions, don't have them. Police yourself. And if you find an image to be offensive, make a complaint in a timely manner, and be specific.

Past that, just grow up. Everybody. Don't hold grudges or keep ammo in reserve for future use.

 

[soulpope]

No pun intended but this comes to my mind :

"Everything is said, but not by everybody" ....

[JSngry]

[ghost of miles]

8 minutes ago, JSngry said:

And as somebody who spent a weekend + doing exactly that for one sub-forum (and 90 or so days back for the entire board) to restore the entirety of one poster's content that had been inadvertently deleted (blocked, more accurately), I wish you all well with that endeavor, and advise anybody who thinks they want to become a moderator to be ready to do the same.

If you don't want political discussions, don't have them. Police yourself. And if you find an image to be offensive, make a complaint in a timely manner, and be specific.

Past that, just grow up. Everybody. Don't hold grudges or keep ammo in reserve for future use.

 

Hey Jim, I will be eternally grateful for all of the work you did to restore all of the content that went missing after another mod accidentally blocked me. I don’t even normally check this thread and take no umbrage at anything that’s been posted—but in the context of the ongoing discussion, I still gotta say that the Time cover, whatever your intent in posting it, comes off as overtly political, no doubt about it. And hell, even a photo of a smiling Kavanaugh family is political at this point—there’s an easily implicit message in posting an image like that. In our hyper-politicized, hyper-partisan age (don’t even get me started! ), any “current events” images that involve controversial political figures are likely to come across as political themselves. I don’t care, I have much better things to worry about than what’s getting posted in the “post a pic” thread, as do we all... and have MUCH respect for your insight and integrity in all things. But I do disagree on this one.

[JSngry]

[ghost of miles]

P.S. This thread is HOT! 

Now here’s an image we can all get behind... or get a head! 

[JSngry]

2 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

 And hell, even a photo of a smiling Kavanaugh family is political at this point...

See above, it's just a family and a flag. Nothing political about it at all. That's not my call, that's Dan's.

But are they all smiling?

I think a better takeaway from this might be to just not post any pictures of children. They're nothing but trouble!

[ghost of miles]

Just now, JSngry said:

See above, it's just a family and a flag. Nothing political about it at all. That's not my call, that's Dan's.

But are they all smiling?

I think a better takeaway from this might be to just not post any pictures of children. They're nothing but trouble!

 Damn kidz! Get off my Forest Lawn!

[JSngry]

3 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

P.S. This thread is HOT! 

9 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

 In our hyper-politicized, hyper-partisan age (don’t even get me started! ), any “current events” images that involve controversial political figures are likely to come across as political themselves.

Yeah, well, I respect that as a current reality, but I have zero respect for it as an ongoing belief system. Ever.

 

[ghost of miles]

Came across this in my search for humorous gravestone images—however, it could be considered pro-gun control:  

Edited October 9, 2018 by ghost of miles

[Larry Kart]

1 hour ago, Brad said:

This is the classic problem when you have regulators regulating themselves.  It's not possible because it's a conflict of interest. If you and your fellow mods can't see it, then we have a problem that goes beyond this thread but affects the entire Forum itself. 

If you are calling bs, I suggest you take a long look in the mirror because that's where the bs is emanating from. 

Based on your post and Larry's stance to take any action, you have sacrificed your right to be a moderator and it's time for a new one. 

'...your "right" to be a moderator..."? ROFL.

As I've said or implied before, right there's a big part of the problem -- some of you guys think we're your servants and have nothing better to do than sweep up all the  elephant crap after the circus parade. But we're volunteers who also have lives to live, and are in tune with the idea of self-policing.

[JSngry]

4 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

'...your "right" to be a moderator..."? ROFL.

As I've said or implied before, right there's a big part of the problem -- some of you guys think we're your servants and have nothing better to do than sweep up all the  elephant crap after the circus parade. But we're volunteers who also have lives to live, and are in tune with the idea of self-policing.

Right. You know, I bid on this gig, and I got a union contract. I get paid OT for the special projects too. Why do you think I don't complain when you delete threads and shit? Because that's money in my pocket - and some of that goes in yours, as I'm sure you well know.

Like I said, after the midterms, we're coming to getcha'! You wanna fuck with a moderator, be my guest. We have your IP address, we know where you live.

Welcome to America!

Oh, ok, just kidding about the cabal and shit. I don't want to make the error of assuming that everybody knows that. Can't bee too careful these days, especially with children.

Welcome to America!

[jlhoots]

FWIW, nothing I've ever seen on this thread has upset me - but the rules are the rules.

[JSngry]

My reading of the rules now is that if anybody is upset, then I should be upset, and then keep an eye open to delete anything that could upset anybody before anybody can get upset. Also, no images of anybody who's "in the news", because news is political and it upsets people, it's not something to be in, the news isn't, not if you want your picture to be seen here.

[Larry Kart]

2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

So if you deleted this or that political post in this thread during recent days as it seems, what's keeping YOU from deleting JSangrey's Time cover post (which - like that of many others - I find EXCEEDINGLY political too)? After all its been brought to your attention by now. (Is there really any question or doubt about photos carrying and being able to carry an immensely political message?)
Or is one mod deleting another mod's post out of the question?

FWIW (and even if it only adds another repetitive layer to the debate), needless to say that on grounds of fairness I agree with what Brad and Paul Secor said here recently about one rule for everybody. Once you start enforcing rules, enforce ONE set of rules vs EVERYbody. Wouldn't that be just a matter of fair and square fairness all around?

What's keeping me from deleting me from deleting Jim's post? He knows where I live, and I'm mortally afraid of him.

Or. better, I've heard what he has to say about that image, don't particularly agree with it, but if deleting it is going to embroil me in a dispute with someone I don't want to argue with, and not deleting isn't going to knock this whole forum or the entire universe off its axis -- and surely it won't -- then I'm going to leave the past in the past and pay attention to the present and the future of what goes on here as best I can. But, hey, what about the Dreyfus Case? And who really started the Reichstag Fire?

[JSngry]

You can delete it or leave it standing. I really don't care either way. Seriosuly. It's gotten more attention in the last 24 hours than in the previous 90+ days combined, so it's old news (oops, didn't mean to use the O-Version of the n-word here, SORRY!) by now.

 

[ghost of miles]

I think all other posters have been asking for in this thread is the general principle that the rules moderators apply to the board apply to themselves as well.  Seems this whole dust-up arose from the necessity to purge some recent posts for political reasons, which caused some O members to wonder why earlier ones, in particular by a fellow moderator, had gotten a pass.  That doesn't seem like a ludicrous or excessive request or concern--it's not so much "please dear God get rid of that Time Magazine image, itz been haunting me for months!!!" as it is, are moderators going to favor other moderators in general when it comes to applying board standards?  That's all.  

And yeah, sorry, Brett Kavanaugh is a freakin' lightning rod in American culture right now and will continue to be so for quite a long time, most likely.  I'm sure Jsngry isn't intending to endorse his confirmation to the Supreme Court by posting a family photo op, but can of worms and all that, because on its own, it can easily be perceived as an endorsement.  If a board member started posting photo ops of Trump or Kamala Harris or some such in this thread, it would be pretty obviously political.  Here's an easy way of defining it:  "no politics" should include "no political figures," especially since the overwhelming significance of political figures is... politics.  Problem solved!

Edited October 9, 2018 by ghost of miles

[JSngry]

6 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

 If a board member started posting photo ops of Trump or Kamala Harris or some such in this thread, it would be pretty obviously political. 

Not at all. Both can have some pretty striking, expressive visages that speak to broader realities, human existential realities than the mundanely immediate  "political".

That's where a good photographer or constructor should be recognized - for finding a universal reality/truth in a specific event. It happens every day...or at least several times a week.

Now, if your position is that the general membership of this forum has neither the inclination or perspicacity to grasp this, I'll not argue against you. But you know me, I'm a dreamer.

 

[JSngry]

13 minutes ago, ghost of miles said:

I think all other posters have been asking for in this thread is the general principle that the rules moderators apply to the board apply to themselves as well.  Seems this whole dust-up arose from the necessity to purge some recent posts for political reasons, which caused some O members to wonder why earlier ones, in particular by a fellow moderator, had gotten a pass. 

I got the sense that the recent "purge" (a potentially political term, watch yourself!) was only of fairly recent vintages. As I can vouch to, you can only go back so far on these things, these digs. It takes time. The time cover was posted more than 90 days ago and did not receive, as far as I can tell, not one complaint when it went up. Not one.

So, did Larry see mine and let it pass? I don't know. If he did, I'll say it again - feel free to delete it. But it's equally possible that nobody complained, so he let it ride, because, as he says, he knows me to not be somebody who defaults to cheap defiance in matters such as this.

But how much of this "outrage" is coming from people who were upset then but were too cowardly to call it out then, in real time. How much of this "outrage" comes from some members who have weird feelings about things "American" and/or "censorship" to the point where overtly political cartoons of unambiguous political messaging (it's their very reason for being) are routinely posted in open defiance of repeated admonitions and then when action is taking, up come the objections...what are people stockpiling grudges rather than speaking up in real time?

Whatever, seems we have some cowardly sort lying about here, which is ok, I mean they're everywhere, all the time, but just sayin'...adult behavior - desired adult behavior anyway - is not based upon simmering grudges and group courage.

[Dan Gould]

I know that I perused this thread in the summer and saw your post. I did not notate it directly, as I recall there were a number of equally inarguable political photos, one of which I submitted for review.  Inarguable, in my humble opinion.  If there is any log somewhere of post reportings, you can see exactly if I referenced others in that submission without reporting each one or identifying other than saying "jeez there's a lot of political shit in this thread".

For what it's worth, some may note that my long-running anti-Trump quote from Berkeley Breathed of Bloom County fame has been deleted from my signature. I did that yesterday in the spirit of "he who is without sin ...."

[JSngry]

Here are the contents of the logs - that I can access - for user reported contents through April of 2017. I do not see your complaint. Which doesn't mean you didn't register one, it just means that I can't find it.

To that end, please note that, like many other features of this board, navigating this shit is not without some, uh, "difficulty". so I can't vouch for this being a "definitive record". But this is what I have visible to me, right now.

Randy Weston - Thoughts and tributes

Post in Artists

1 comment

1 report

 

Larry Kart

1 October

 

 

So, What Are You Listening To NOW?

Post in Miscellaneous Music

2 comments

1 report

 

JSngry

25 September

 

 

Grady Tate Has Died

Post in Artists

1 comment

1 report

 

Larry Kart

11 Oct 2017

 

 

Hey Kids, Have You Heard The News? MOSAIC's IN TROUBLE!!!

Post in Mosaic and other box sets...

4 comments

1 report

 

JSngry

19 Aug 2017

 

 

Clifford Jordan-Strata East Mosaic

Post in Mosaic and other box sets...

1 comment

1 report

 

Larry Kart

15 Jul 2017

 

 

Hey Kids, Have You Heard The News? MOSAIC's IN TROUBLE!!!

Post in Mosaic and other box sets...

2 comments

1 report

 

JSngry

14 Jul 2017

 

 

Hey Kids, Have You Heard The News? MOSAIC's IN TROUBLE!!!

Post in Mosaic and other box sets...

1 comment

1 report

 

Larry Kart

13 Jul 2017

 

 

Content deleted

Post

1 comment

1 report

 

JSngry

4 Apr 2017

 

 

Content deleted

Post

1 comment

1 report

 

JSngry

4 Apr 2017

Also worth noting that the vast majority of reports these days are for, like, duplicate threads, double postings, etc.

I will also advise that, due solely to time/life constraints, all complaints are reviewed, but only specific items are dealt with (if they are dealt with...we had one guy who would whine on about all sorts of shit, not just occasionally, but FREQUENTLY, and you know, you try to accommodate everybody, but after a while, you realize that there's always going to be somebody who's just a pain in the ass for no good reason), anyway, what was I saying...oh yeah, be specific. There is a process involved in removing content, and there's no bulk tool. It's all manual, and on a per-item basis only. So if you just talk about "a lot of posts"  or words like that, hey. Some days are better than others, but no day has time enough to play Judge Judy on every possible contender to be offender. Hell, Judge Judy got a script and a director. We don't.

[Larry Kart]

I think I did see that Time cover post of Jim's at the time but didn't delete it, in part probably because (horror of horrors) I know Jim, and also because IIRC no one complained about it at the time. Again, almost every political post that I've deleted was deleted because someone complained about it in real time. An image of a fanged Theresa May being anally raped by Boris Johnson in front of the Houses of Parliament as she bites off the head of the Muslim mayor of London -- now that might have caught my attention. In case anyone is offended, that was an attempt to be satirical.

[JSngry]

24 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

I think I did see that Time cover post of Jim's at the time but didn't delete it, in part probably because (horror of horrors) I know Jim, and also because IIRC no one complained about it at the time.

And thank you for knowing me. Not because you let me "break the rules", but because you sensed - correctly - that my posting of that cover was not political in intent, that it was to point out that this is a powerful image of a current situation, draw your own conclusions, but damn, that's a good construction, artfully done. and yes, unless you look at source first and nothing later, you could see it with more than one interpretation. I know I sure did. But then I'm the type of person who likes to roll things around in my mind. There are facts and there are conclusions, and if you reach one without considering all of the other, you're pretty much somebody's useful idiot and your "principles" ultimately don't mean shit.

So yeah, you knew me. And still do.

But all these accusations of conspiracy, favoritism, and such, one word. Bullshit.

Although - if you accidentally delete one more thread, I am SO going to flag you as a spammer forever.

 

[Dan Gould]

So the question comes to mind, Jim:

Did it occur to post this - seemingly obvious - political newsmagazine cover and, as a mod who should know and follow the rules, post something about "this could be construed as political but I see it as artful, and powerful, and indicative of the current conflict without taking a side. You may think I'm posting in a political way but that's not my intent."?

 

 

[Coda]

I'm happy to see this dialog and feel it's time to make a fresh start.   First up is a picture from my favorite street photographer